About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
's ridiculous. >> what the bill does -- >> reporter: now the defense of marriage act, also known by doma first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996, is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide whether as to whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean, we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c., and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefit and the issue with doma really gets complicate federal they have children who ar
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
marriage cases including doma, the defense of marriage act. our panel, newt gingrich, evan byah, jennifer rubin of the "washington post" and, fox news analyst juan williams. you oppose same sex marriage but want to see the court make a sweeping decision or a narrow decision to leave it where it is now in various state legislatures. >> they are making the point, look at the percentage of support. if that is true, over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. they would be far better off to decide the cases on the narrowest possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against -- >> a huge mistake and undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator, how far would you like to see the court go and how far do you expect them to go. >> it means trying to read the mind of justice kennedy and my guess is he'd be reluctant to strike down the laws of the 41 states that currently prohibit same sex marriage or allow civil unions. but, on the other hand, seize the broad sweep of history here, the direction the countr
be for the supreme court to strike down prop 8 and doma so this becomes settled law of the land and they do not have to deal with the schism inside their party and all the old guys who are culturally or religiously or for whatever reason resistant to marriage equality will no longer be holding office and will die off, i think is what josh says, and the republican party can move past this. >> well, it would take a brave republican in the meantime to move against the party on this with only 34% support in the republican party. and rand paul is not that brave republican. it's always fun to watch him torn between libertarianism and republicanism as he is on this thing, the libertarian view, of course, is that government should have nothing to do with religion in any way. they don't understand why the state would -- be issuing marriage licenses. but, you know, there he is. stuck defending the republican position. and -- but ari, going forward, if the supreme court doesn't help out the republican party this way, how long would it take for there to be some beginning of peeling off of republicans from the p
clinton recently wanting the supreme court to overterm o dd doma and was that a cat take list for hillary clinton? >> i think we can probably guess pretty well that people's family influences were there on this issue. hillary clinton said it herself in the clip you played. and certainly president obama was moved as he said by his daughters and his wife. so i would imagine that the former president and chelsea had an influence on where the secretary ended up, as well. >> brian, last question. just you and me and a couple people watching. are there any more big named announcements in the works for you? >> well, we've seen seen a lot of really exciting developments on the issue of marriage. >> folks like -- >> you know, you never know who the next person will be. but i'm sure we'll be hearing from more people in the coming days and weeks. >> i tried. brian, thank you so much. appreciate it. >>> new york mayor michael bloomberg is proposing yet another health initiative. this one would require stores to keep tobacco products hidden in cabinets behind curtains, under the counter. this idea com
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)